This is all a bit much ... Trump, the Swamp, and the domestic enemies of everyone ...

More than 5 months ago, I stated that if Trump screwed up, people would abandon him like rats from a sinking ship.  I thought it would be easier keeping track of his administration given a brand new start.

It wasn't.  It isn't.

So, I don't believe I can keep up with this tireless tirade of tyrannical leftists ... Trump is a bozo and I cringe when I hear or see him, but they are despicable.

The whole Russian thing - nothing.  There is nothing there.  What they have is ... the democratic party was hacked by Russians who released their emails, along with Hillarys emails.  So say the Democrats and Hillary.  But, Wikileaks says it wasn't, and Assange is quite certain.  As certain as he was when he went after Bush and the left rejoiced at his every release.  They salivated waiting his next release.  Today, not so much.  It wasn't the Russians.  Any high school hacker could access the emails.

Instead you blow it up.  The Russians did it and the fact Trump won't answer means they did, and they are still in control and when he denies it, it means they are controlling him.

And then Kushner did X, and that only proves the ties are deeper than previously known.  And because of that it proves the Russian connections, and that Russia did influence the election.

Yet, IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.  It is just mindless drivel spit out at a public either salivating with desire to know more dirt, or people sickened by the shit coming from the NYT and WP.


Another Washington Post anonymously sourced hit job dropped on the Trump White House — this one about Jared Kushner asking the Russian ambassador for a “secret channel.”

The story about Kushner is basic Poli Sci 101 - back channels are always set up (even with Obama), with countries you have so-so relationships with.  We have a back-channel with Iran, but the WP doesn't go on about that.  We use Switzerland.   We have a back-channel to North Korea - we use China.  I would also bet we have low level back channel, through individuals who met and know the North Korean leader.  There are multiple levels to back-channel relationships done for any number of reasons.  We had them in place during the Cold War - Armand Hammer was used by the Nixon and Carter administrations.  Democrats know this.  And legitimate and objective reporters know this.


Mindless drivel by petulant children and you wonder why Trump disregards you.  You are not worth paying attention to.  Honestly.



The below is taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/28/thanks-to-trump-germany-says-it-cant-rely-on-america-what-does-that-mean/?utm_term=.eae377d6d51c

Agence France-Presse reported Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has told a crowd in southern Germany that Europe can no longer rely on foreign partners.

The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added. While Germany and Europe would strive to remain on good terms with America and Britain, “we have to fight for our own destiny.”

This is an enormous change in political rhetoric. While the public is more familiar with the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States, the German-U.S. relationship has arguably been more important. One of the key purposes of NATO was to embed Germany in an international framework that would prevent it from becoming a threat to European peace as it had been in World War I and World War II. In the words of NATO’s first secretary general, NATO was supposed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Now, Merkel is suggesting that the Americans aren’t really in, and, by extension, Germany and Europe are likely to take on a much more substantial and independent role than they have in the past 70 years.
This is thanks to Trump
Merkel’s comment about what she has experienced in the past few days is a clear reference to President Trump’s disastrous European tour. Her belief that the United States is no longer a reliable partner is a direct result of Trump’s words and actions. The keystone of NATO is Article 5, which has typically been read as a commitment that in the event that one member of the alliance is attacked, all other members will come to its aid. When Trump visited NATO, he dedicated a plaque to the one time that Article 5 has been invoked — when all members of NATO promised to come to the United States’ support after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. However, Trump did not express his commitment to Article 5 in his speech to NATO, instead lambasting other NATO members for not spending enough money on their militaries. When Trump went on to the Group of Seven meeting in Italy, he declined to recommit to the Paris agreement on climate change, leaving the other six nations to issue a separate statement.
This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner. Trump has ostentatiously refused to express his commitment to an agreement that has been the bulwark of Europe-U.S. security relations over the past three generations. He also has declined to say that the United States will work within the previously agreed framework on global warming. While many authoritarian states are cheered by Trump’s election and actions, since he is unlikely to press them on human rights and other sore points, traditional U.S. allies are enormously disheartened.

Yet another bit of witless wonder from the WP -

But some former administration officials on Sunday criticized the use of such secret channels, especially during a presidential transition, saying they could send a confusing message and be manipulated by a foreign power.

I really need to go back to UCLA and request a refund from the courses taken in poli sci, because apparently people like Dukakis and Dallek, and other professors I took classes from were wrong compared with these 'experts'!




 BULLSHIT.

Facts?  Or just OPINION mixed with a few details that have no bearing on anything written above.

Henry Farrell is a poor example of a writer.  You should do creative writing, because that is what your article is.  Creative writing.  A poor example of, but still, far from serious news reporting.

This is an example of what has been tossed at Trump for the last 5 months.  Shit.  And his inability to restrain his fingers from tap tap tapping away, only makes it worse, and they play on it.  Sad stupid people.

I do recall a statement from Der Spiegel - in which Merkle stated that she did not TRUST Obama, and he was not trustworthy.  Poland didn't think we were either, they set up relationships because Obama didn't show respect for the security of Poland.  Ukraine - they were left on their own, and felt we had abandoned them - Hillary and Obama.  Latvia - they needed to create alliances because NATO made it clear they would not help.  Estonia same thing.  South Korea - as the US pulled troops out of Korea, we made it clear we could not be counted on to protect them from N Korea.  In fact, if you are that animated about all this - look into 1993-1998, Clinton White House and North Korea, as to who provided North Korea with what today is the basis of their most worrisome weapon system.

Given all that - and the fact that on DAY ONE, HOUR ONE, Obama called not the Canadian Prime Minister, nor the British ... he called Abbas in West Bank.  Abbas was also his last call.  THAT showed how the US would treat our ally Israel.  That showed how valuable we prized the relationship with Canada.  And then, Obama making it clear in his words, that our relationship with England was important and valuable ... but he did not use the words special.  He signaled a change.

The former French President Sarkozy turned away from the US, The English were not engaged.  The Australians were dictated to - Obama forced them to accept terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.  They did not want nor ask for them, but he made them take them, thus placing Australians at greater risk.

The French, Estonians, English, Latvians, Ukrainians, Polish, Hungarian, South Korean, Canadian, Israeli ... and Germans ... all saw the writing on the wall.  He worked with them, but they knew they had to build their own alliances because the US wasn't willing to continue our defensive efforts to protect those countries.  We would go so far, but not beyond.

THAT is a bloody disgrace.

Trump comes along and says - Euros, pay what the NATO Charter says you will pay.  We will always be here for you, but you need to be responsible and keep up your end of the treaty.  We will do our part.

And for that the WP says "This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner"  Ha ha ha ha.  To whom.  Your readers.  You are a joke.  The writer of this trash is a disgrace.  You are pathetic - both as  a newspaper and the writer who most likely thinks of himself as a journalist.  Ha Ha.

It is too much though.  It is everyday, every article.  They never tire.  They have no conscience.


Do you want something to investigate besides North Korea and Bill Clinton?
Look at how much money Hillary and Bill received from Russian sources (government, or NGOs or personal parties who are Russian).
Look into how much money John Podesta made from Russian stocks and or received from Russian sources.

That is something real!

That is worth noting given her billion dollar funding source she calls a non-profit ... which was originally set up for ??? what reason???  And of the total $1 received in donation, how much was spent and where????

That is something real!

Dear Everyone -

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Dear Republicans

The 17 people who stood on the stage were the 'best' you had?  You didn't have much.

Are Republicans just getting less competent, less qualified, less able to 'be'?  Are Republicans so caught up in the myriad of victimization schemes they have lost sight of the prize - the history and future of the United States of America.  They were a grand party, one with ideas, and men who stood for values and an identity - who were proud of America and were willing to fight til the end to save her from the wrong path.

You have been so long divorced from the people - the immigrants, and working class - you have bought in to the 2nd class status Republicans have held for so long that you believe capitulating to Democrats helps your chances of ... I'm not sure what, but you must believe something.  Each time Republicans hold a branch - Congress or White House, when it turns over, you work nicely to allow a smooth transition.  You don't ram bills through, you invite Democrats to the office and discuss a transition.  Why?  Collegiality?

When Democrats lose control of a branch of government they ram bills through, exclude Republicans from meetings or discussions until the new government takes office.  This has happened each and every time the switch has occurred since at least 1996.  Why do you still insist on following a path that hurts America each time.  They push bills through, hold committee hearings and don't allow Republicans input, even when the national/state votes are for the Republicans.  They play the legalistic game, you play collegiality.  Why?  Are you retarded.  There actions do not benefit America so why do you allow it.  They don't.  What are you afraid of - being called abrasive or pushy ... they already call you that and every nasty name possible.  Where is your spine.  Where is your willingness to do what is best for America and Americans.  In your socks.

Instead the party of ideas gave us 17 people - none of whom would be a very good president.

The Presidency is not just a job.  It is not just an office.  It is not just a position within a building called the White House.  It is the single most important position on planet earth.  From the creation of said position by George Washington, and the manner he carried himself, the respect that was developed within and for the position of President of the United States ... decades and centuries of work by men who treated the position with respect and reverence (yes, I am aware some did not) - centuries of work by men who built the respect up ... to be torn down by either of the two people we are faced with choosing from ... is disgraceful.

You created Trump.  Had someone of stature and respect run, he would not.  Your bumbling useless idiots are what brought him into the game.  You did it.  You and the Democratic party put us in the horrible position we now find ourselves.  Shame on all of you.

Now that he is the President, if you fail to support him, you will destroy the Republican party and doom your chances of ever governing again for 50 years.  It is your choice, but if you choose wrong, America loses.  The world loses.

Signed,
Very unhappy camper

What if Donald doesn't make it to November 8?

What if very powerful (but apparently not powerful enough to stop him from getting this far), men have decided that Donald Trump will not be the name on the ticket on November 8.  What if these men have found the dirt they will dump over the next few weeks that will force him to ... drop out ... for whatever reason he would like to choose ... and turn it over to Pence ? and maybe someone else? 

What if?  And what if those men hate Hillary almost as much, but are intent on stopping The Donald to save the Republic, in their minds.

What if.

Could it be true? Those we believe are protecting us from the heartless Republicans are themselves selling us out?

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, November 28, 2011

The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

dems

Americans Pre-Revolutionary

Caddell is a Democrat.  Supported Clinton and before him, Carter.

Pollster: Americans Are “Pre-Revolutionary”

Just 17 per cent believe U.S. government has consent of the governed

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, August 8, 2011

Amidst riots in central Europe that have now spread to London and a debt downgrade that threatens to plunge the United States into a double-dip recession, Americans’ lack of confidence in their leadership is so crippled that they are now “pre-revolutionary,” according to pollster Pat Caddell.

A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low. This dovetails with a record low for Congress’ approval rating, which stands at a paltry 6 per cent, while 46 per cent of Americans think most members of Congress are corrupt, with just 29% believing otherwise.

“The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed – a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence – is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet,” according to Rasmussen.

The poll was conducted before Friday’s U.S. debt downgrade, indicating that the figures could be even more dire in the aftermath of what some analysts believe is a precursor to a new great depression.

The results of this survey indicate that Americans are now “pre-revolutionary” says pollster Pat Caddell, who described the outcome of the poll as “unprecedented”.

This conclusion follows Caddell’s observation last November that “a sea of anger is churning” amongst Americans who “want to take their country back” and that the nation stood on the brink of a “pre-revolutionary moment”.

obama

Biden: Republicans are Terrorists. Democrats: Republicans are a Satan Sandwich.

Many Democrats and almost all Liberals oppose war and want negotiation with terrorists, most especially the Taliban.  9/11 for many Liberals was payback for US 'imperialism' and when Bush said 'you are either with us or against us' - all Liberals and many Democrats (imagine the scene in the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers where one of the remaining humans in the town is uncovered by the aliens and they turn, point and open their mouths and the noise that follows ....) began emitting a noise that would seem to come from an animal close to death, in its last throes of pain as it squeals in agony.   How dare Bush question our patriotism.  How dare Republicans question our dedication and commitment to the United States.  So fierce were their screeching sounds that Republicans prefaced everything with - we don't question their love for the country or we don't question their patriotism ... and Republicans tempered their statements even though what Bush stated was very true - you either stand with the United States government and Western Civilization or you support those who want to kill you.  We don't have to always agree on how we will oppose them, but we do need to agree we oppose them.  Liberals can't even agree on that issue and so perverted the argument it is meaningless - except to place Republicans on the defense.

All of that means nothing if you are a Liberal because you can call anyone you want names and not feel the slightest bit guilty.  After all, whatever you call someone, it must be accurate and so calling them a name is fine.  Unlike Republicans who do it out of spite and hate.

Unlike Democrats.

Sources: Biden likens tea partiers to 'terrorists'

By: Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan
Politico

August 1, 2011

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden’s office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”

Biden later denied he used that term in an interview with CBS.

“I did not use the terrorism word,” Biden told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

The vice president’s hot rhetoric about tea party Republicans underscored the tense moment on Capitol Hill as four party leaders in both chambers work to round up the needed votes in an abbreviated time frame. The bill would raise the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion through the end of next year and reduce the deficit by an equal amount over the next decade.

Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

The deal was consummated Sunday night, the text of the bill was posted in the wee hours of Monday morning, and the House was expected to vote first on it Monday afternoon or evening. But there are still plenty of concerns in both parties and in both chambers.

Liberal Democrats have had the most averse reaction to the plan, which ensures between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade without requiring any of it to come from tax increases.

Biden told Democratic lawmakers that the deal would take away the tea party’s “weapon of mass destruction” — the threat of a default on U.S. debt obligations.

“They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want,” Doyle told POLITICO after the meeting.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dems

The New York Times: Why Can't Republicans Just Accept We Won.

The New York Times in all its objectivity.  Republicans can't say yes.  They can't say yes to anything, or won't.  They are unable to say yes.

Except - why should they say yes to greater spending, higher taxes, greater government ... why not less spending, less government, and less taxes.  Why not.

Social Security payments will go out.  Soldiers will get paid.  Those are not realistic fears - but they are used by fearmongers who cater to your fear, not objective and fair analysis.

July 22, 2011

The New York Times

Editorial

The Party That Can’t Say Yes

For days, the White House has infuriated its Democratic allies in Congress by offering House Republicans more and more in exchange for a deal to raise the debt ceiling and prevent default. But it was never enough, and, on Friday evening, it became clear that it may never be enough. Speaker John Boehner again walked away from the “grand bargain” he had been negotiating with President Obama, leaving the country teetering on the brink of another economic collapse.

At the White House podium a few minutes later, the president radiated a righteous fury he rarely displays in public, finally placing the blame for this wholly unnecessary crisis squarely where it belongs: on Republicans who will do anything to upend his presidency and dismantle every social program they can find. “Can they say yes to anything?” he asked, noting the paradox of Republicans, who claim that financial responsibility and debt reduction are their biggest priorities, rejecting yet another deal that would have cut that debt by at least $3 trillion.

Mr. Obama, in fact, had already gone much too far in trying to make his deal palatable to House Republicans, offering to cut spending even further than the deficit plan proposed this week by the bipartisan “Gang of Six,” which includes some of the Senate’s most conservative members. The White House was willing to cut $1 trillion in domestic and defense spending and another $650 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security.

Much of that savings would have come from raising the eligibility age for Medicare benefits and reducing the cost-of-living increases that elderly people depend on when receiving their health and pension benefits. It could have caused significant damage to some of the nation’s most vulnerable people.

The “bargain” would require that alongside these cuts, tax revenues would go up by $1.2 trillion, largely through a rewrite of the tax code to eliminate many deductions and loopholes. That’s substantially less in revenue than the $2 trillion in the “Gang of Six” plan. The problem is that while much of the cutting would start right away, most of the revenue increases would be put off, in part because a tax-code revision would take months, and in part to allow House Republicans to say they did not agree to any specific tax revenue increases.

Democratic lawmakers were rightly furious when they heard about these details this week, calling the plan wholly unbalanced. But, in the end, it was Mr. Boehner who torpedoed the talks. He said Friday evening that he and the president had come close to agreeing on $800 billion of the revenue increases (the equivalent of letting the upper-income Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled next year — not much of a heavy lift) but could not stomach another $400 billion the White House wanted to raise through ending tax loopholes and deductions.

So, on the eve of economic calamity, the Republicans killed an overly generous deal largely over a paltry $400 billion in deductions. Mr. Obama was willing to take considerable heat from his liberal critics over the deal, and the Republicans were not willing to do a thing to anger their Tea Party base. As the president forcefully said, there is no evidence that House Republicans are capable of making those tough decisions. If last-ditch talks beginning Saturday fail, they will have to take responsibility if the unimaginable — a government default — happens in 10 days and the checks stop going out.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
liberals

Losercrats in Congress: Don't blame us.

If this were a Republicans, Barney Frank would quickly be yelling about hypocrisy and he would call on the Republican to resign.  Nancy Pelosi would be screaming about the need to retake congress to drain the swamp.  But this is a Democrat who was impeached and removed from the federal bench and yet the people of his district elected him - despite his illegal behavior.  And they wonder why Republicans would re-elect any official.  Because Republicans are not the sludge at the bottom of the pond - Democrats are.  Republicans are something else, but to re-elect these people or even to elect them after what they are convicted of, says more about the constituents.  People who should never have been given the right to vote.






Florida Democrat Faces Sexual Harassment Inquiry




Office of Congressional Ethics investigates Alcee Hastings



 By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff
Jun 22, 2011




(Newser) – The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating allegations that Democrat Alcee Hastings sexually harassed a staffer on a panel he chaired, the Wall Street Journal reports. The investigation began at least a month ago, when the conservative group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of Republican staffer Winsome Packer, who says Hastings made “unwelcome sexual advances” on her, including “unwelcome touching.” She also says Hastings retaliated when she tried to report it.

Asked for comment on the investigation, Hastings replied, “It would be impossible for me in a paragraph or a page or two or a tome or volumes one and two to help you understand the dynamics of these events.” But a spokesman clarified that he “in the strongest terms, denies the charges.” When the lawsuit was first filed, Hastings called the allegations “ludicrous” and promised he’d win, saying, “In a race with a lie, the truth always wins.” This is not Hastings' first rumble with Congress: While serving as a federal judge he was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate on bribery charges and removed from the federal bench in 1989—and went on to win an election to the House three years later.









 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
democrats

One of the Most Dishonest Speeches in the Last 40 Years

The Presidential Divider




Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt


Wall Street Journal
April 14, 2011


Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare's gargantuan liabilities is that it is "just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse." His own plan is to double down on the program's price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out "unnecessary spending." Is that the same as "waste and abuse"?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won't harm seniors' care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan's plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It's hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen "to find additional savings," whatever those might be, after a "fundamental review." These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt "failsafe," which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else "making government smarter, leaner and more effective." Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.














obama

Lies my Reopresentative told me: Dems and Reps - we will cut the budget (is it meaningful for you yet)

Deficit for Fiscal 2007 Slides.

By topeditor
October 5, 2007, 6:32 PM ET.



It’s all in the surge – the revenue surge, that is.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday that the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2007, which ended Sunday, was about $161 billion, or 1.2% of gross domestic product. That’s down from the $248 billion shortfall recorded in fiscal 2006, which translated into 1.9% of GDP. The Treasury Department will report the official tally later this month.

Much of the improvement in the nation’s fiscal outlook in the last year has come from continued rapid growth in federal revenue. CBO estimates that 18.8% of GDP in fiscal 2007, up from 18.4% 2006 and 16.3% in 2004 and 18.4% in 2000. Outlays came to an estimated 20% of GDP, about equal to the average over the previous five years.

While annual federal spending grew 2.8% in fiscal 2007 over fiscal 2006, year to year, revenue grew 6.7%. Individual income-tax receipts are estimated to be 11.3% higher than last year, and corporate income tax receipts are estimated to be 5% higher. Revenue growth has cooled substantially from the 11.8% fiscal year-to-year increase from 2005 to 2006. Spending growth also slowed.

Federal expenditures were up in fiscal 2006 due to Gulf-coast hurricane recovery efforts. They were driven down in fiscal 2007 by legislation enacted in 2006 cutting student loan subsidies and auctioning off a portion of the broadcast spectrum, proceeds from which are recorded as negative expenditures not as revenues.

“While somewhat lower than estimates issued at the beginning of the year, the 2007 deficit announced today by the Congressional Budget Office is no cause for celebration,” said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D., S.C.)

CBO has estimated that if the U.S. maintains a military presence in Iraq and if Congress doesn’t allow the tax cuts enacted in President George W. Bush’s first term to expire, then recent improvements in the deficit will be reversed, pushing it up to to roughly $300 billion by 2012.



*****************************************


And as bad as that was, and we were told everyday by Democrats how bad it was ....


... it just got worse.



******************************************


U.S. sets $223B deficit record


Dwarfs Hill’s cutting goals




By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
11:46 a.m., Monday, March 7, 2011


The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February, a $223 billion shortfall that put a sharp point on the current fight on Capitol Hill about how deeply to cut this year's spending.

That one-month figure, which came in a preliminary report from the Congressional Budget Office, dwarfs even the most robust cuts being talked about on the Hill, and underscores just how much work lawmakers have to do to get the government's finances in balance again.

The Senate plans to vote Tuesday on competing proposals to cut spending, but Democrats have rejected GOP-backed cuts of more than $50 billion, and Republicans have ruled out Democrats' cuts of less than $10 billion, meaning neither plan will draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and pass.

"We've all done the math and we all know how these votes will turn out: Neither proposal will pass, which means neither will reach the president's desk as written. We'll go back to square one and back to the negotiating table," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

The two sides are facing a March 18 deadline, which is when the current stopgap funding bill expires. Without a new spending agreement by then, the government would shut down.

The House two weeks ago passed a bill that would cut $57 billion more from 2010 spending levels, including major reductions in a number of domestic programs.

Over the weekend, a top Senate Democrat said his party can accept no more than $6 billion in domestic cuts, and pointed to the proposal his colleagues introduced Friday that trims from several areas.

But a new set of numbers from the CBO indicates that Senate Democrats' proposal actually totals only $4.7 billion when measured as reductions compared with the previous year's spending.

So far, budget negotiations have not produced much visible progress.

President Obama designated Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his point man in the conversations, and Mr. Biden convened a meeting with congressional leaders last Thursday at the Capitol. But Mr. Biden is traveling in Europe this week on a long-planned trip to meet with foreign leaders

Was it a secret meeting?  Off the record, off the books, in quiet and dark places, or one that was actually transparent?


White House press secretary Jay Carney hinted that Mr. Biden could still participate by phone, but declined to say whether anyone else was taking the lead in the talks in his absence.

"I'm not going to specify, simply to say that a variety of staff members, senior staff members, have been in conversations with folks on the Hill about this," the spokesman said.

Republicans argue that Congress needs to tackle not only short-term spending, but long-term growth in the costs of Social Security and Medicare as well.

"Something must be done, and now is the time to do it. Republicans are ready and willing. Where is the president?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. "Suddenly, at the moment when we can actually do something about all this, he's silent."

According to the CBO, the government has notched a $642 billion deficit for the first five months of fiscal 2011, which is slightly less than last year's pace. Income tax revenues are rising faster than spending, which accounts for the marginally improved picture.

But interest on the debt continues to grow, reaching $101 billion through the end of February — a 12.5 percent increase over 2010.

The nonpartisan CBO's February deficit number is preliminary. The Treasury Department will issue the final number later this week.

February is traditionally a bad month for federal finances. The previous two records were $220.9 billion, posted exactly a year ago, and $193.9 billion in February 2009.















 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
deficit

Dems object to GOP gov't transparency probe


Congressmen say Rep. Issa's inquiry will burden federal agencies



By TED BRIDIS
updated 2/2/2011 4:09:04 PM ET
MSNBC


WASHINGTON — Some Democrats in Congress objected Wednesday to early steps taken by the new Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to conduct a broad inquiry into President Barack Obama's promises to improve government transparency.

Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Gerald Connolly of Virginia and Peter Welch of Vermont complained in a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that his investigation will burden federal agencies responsible for producing government records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requested by citizens, journalists, companies and others. Cummings is the senior Democrat on the House oversight committee.

Issa last week demanded details of every such request during the last five years, plus copies of all letters or e-mails between government workers and people with pending requests. He said the effort would make sure that "all federal agencies respond in a timely, substantive and non-discriminatory manner" to requests for records under the information law.

The five-year window would cover part of the Bush administration and the first years of Obama's presidency.

In their letter to Issa on Wednesday, the Democrats said the investigation would require government offices to turn over perhaps hundreds of thousands of documents. "Without a defined focus, your inquiry will place a significant burden on FOIA offices and divert limited staff from processing requests from the public," they wrote.

Issa's investigation into government transparency under Obama is among the earliest by Republicans since they won control of the House, and targets one of the first pledges Obama made after he moved into the White House.

The investigation was at least partly prompted by reports last year from The Associated Press that the Homeland Security Department had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers, who wanted information about those requesting the materials.

In some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to more than 1,000 pages of e-mails obtained by the AP.

The Democrats said they were uncomfortable with Issa's request for names of all people who sought federal records, dates of their requests, descriptions of what they asked to receive and whether they ever received anything. They said Issa should modify his request to not include names.

"It is unclear why the committee needs the identities of specific FOIA requesters," they wrote.

Names of people who ask the government for records and details about what they sought under the Freedom of Information Act are generally available publicly, and many are published by federal agencies online.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dems

Open Letter to Republicans

Dear Republican Lawmakers (especially those just elected in on Tuesday Nov 5, 2010):

Tuesday November 5, 2010, is a day that will live in infamy - if you fail to act on the opportunity provided to you by the American people.  It is also President Arthur's birthday if you were unaware.

It is a day to be ever so happy and work to bring everyone together and hug and sing kumbaya ... but you will be given eviction papers in two years if that is the path you take.  I promise.

It is a day to turn to the left and follow the plan Obama has laid out for us ... and if you do, the Republican party will self-destruct, and you will be evicted in 2012.

You have been given a solemn responsibility, and no matter what Keith Obermann, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, the NPR staff, or the Huffington woman say, it is a political earthquake.  Given the fact that Obama won by an amazing percent, with a majority of Americans solidly behind him - this election will show they have left him standing with the 32% who think he is too moderate, and have returned to a party they know will not abandon them to a world run amok.  Yet just as fleeting as Obama's charisma, will be your jobs if you fail to act - use the political power the people have given you to drive a stake through Obama's medical plan.  Provide your own version, one that allows for no government clearinghouse, does not force anyone to do anything they do not wish to do, and does not tax us (fine, penalize, punish) if we do not subscribe to his offer.  Drive a stake through Obamacare, and then do the best you can to drive a stake through his other financial plans, all the while, offering a reasonable plan to replace what he has injected into the system.  Keep your word when you tell us you will make the bills available online, make a promise and keep it.  If you don't, in 2012 you will all lose your jobs, and Obama's minions will be back to drive a stake through your hearts - and dear Republicans, it will be entirely your fault we will fail, for you have been given this responsibility - do not mess up.

Weed out your numbers - eliminate those with serious problems in their personal lives, and do so now, or you will lose in 2012 and what follows will be your responsibility.

Keep your word, don't lie, don't obfuscate, don't manipulate, and don't capitulate - the reigns of power are being turned over to you.  A House (tax branch) under your control, a Senate that will either be divided down the center (with 1-2 Democrats who will stand with Republicans on any military issue requiring you to convince 1-2 others and you have the majority) or a Senate that would only need 1 Democrat to flip and or side with Republicans.  Great power and great responsibility.  Do not mess up.

Do not start shaking hands with Democrats.  For nearly a year what we heard from Obama was 'get over it, we won' ... it does not mean you should be as crass and juvenile, but it does not mean you allow Democrats to retain their chairmanships until January.  The election is the change, and they did it to you in 2008 - it is time to take back the reigns. If you fail to do so - it will be noted. 

We are living in two Americas and while many Democrats are as patriotic and impassioned about our future as any Republican, there is a sizable minority who do not care for our country, our future, or what we have done for the world - they look at what they want to do, not what we have done ... they are a problem and you better recognize it because they will work every second to destroying you, the power you hold, and our future, and if they succeed, it will be because you messed it up.  If you mess it up, you will not be given another chance.  

We sit today on a precipice and what happens in the next 28 months will decide which we we go.









elections

Republicans prove why they should be called the Retardicans

And the whack jobs just keep on coming -


Kim Lehman, who is one of Iowa’s two national Republican Committee members, may be one of the first national committee members to publicly state she believes Obama is a Muslim.



In a speech in Egypt in June 2009, Obama said he is a Christian. But Lehman said the speech “just had the appearance that he was aligning himself with the Muslims.”


Lehman in a telephone interview this morning said what matters is not her personal view that Obama is a Muslim, but his own answer to the issue.


“He’s the one that the news is about. It isn’t about me. Call the president. … Say, ‘Are you a Christian or not?’” Lehman said. “If I’m wrong, I’m more than happy to say, ‘Oh, I’m wrong.”



HEY!  Lehman ... he has already said he is Christian, so ... how about you apologizing and stop the lies.
 
Do I like the man?  No.
 
Do I think he is a good or decent president?  Nope.
 
Do I hope he runs again?  Never.
 
Do I like anything about his policies?  Almost nothing.
 
But that doesn't mean I like lies and slander.  Don't malign the man or his more than 20 years in a Christian church led by a preacher who would make most preachers look and appear downright questionable on their passion for God.
 
Do I believe Obama is doing a great disservice to this country and Western Civilization by saying and doing some of the things he has vis a vis Muslims and Islam - yes.  But get over it, criticize on actions, not on a whole idiotic path fools will follow, along with the Birthers - you have a whole section of the right wing of the Republican party ready to take a leap off a cliff over the fear they have created concerning this man.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Americans are Bigots?

Reagan is, Pelosi isn't.
Reid isn't, all Republicans are.
Democrats aren't, Retardicans can't help but be.

I love it.

What are equally as interesting as the issues raised in the article are the comments - over 670.   I have begun to wonder why anyone writes anything.  Those who agree, will always agree, and those who disagree will ... always disagree.  Remember - everything is set by 1st grade!






MAIN STREET
Wall Street Journal
AUGUST 10, 2010
By WILLIAM MCGURN





Are Americans Bigots?



Attacking the motives of those who disagree with elite opinion has become all too common.


When in 1983 Ronald Reagan characterized the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," the reaction from his betters was swift. Writing in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis called it "primitive"—and wondered (naturally) what the Europeans would think. A headline in Time referred derisively to "The Right Rev. Ronald Reagan." All agreed on one thing: this kind of black-and-white moralizing had no place in American politics.

Now cut to today, where moralizing about the ugly motives of the American people has become common. Whether it's a federal judge declaring there exists no rational opposition to same-sex marriage, a mayor railing against those who would like a mosque moved a few blocks from Ground Zero, a Speaker of the House effectively likening the majority of her countrymen who did not want her health-care bill to Nazis, or a State Department official who brings up the Arizona law on immigration in a human-rights discussion with a Chinese delegation, the chorus is the same: You can't trust ordinary Americans.

In his ruling on California's Proposition 8, federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker gives us the most dressed-up version. Not only does he find the state initiative upholding traditional marriage unconstitutional, his opinion maintains that those who disagree—the majority of California voters—can be motivated only by bigotry.

Among his many findings of "fact" are gems such as these: "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." "[T]he evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage." "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

At least when Ronald Reagan invoked the evil empire, he was talking about a totalitarian system. He also took pains to distinguish between the Soviet system, which he thought irredeemable, and the Russian people, whom he believed wanted the same things we do.

Judge Walker, of course, is not alone. In New York City we have a mayor who preens how an Islamic Center built close to Ground Zero is exclusively a test of religious liberty. Surely it is possible to respect religious liberty and nonetheless believe that with a bit of neighborly solicitude, we might reach a workable accommodation by moving the center a few blocks. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg prefers to see the 61% of New York residents who disagree with him as people who ought to be "ashamed of themselves."

Are there these feelings and expressions on the right? And are some Americans bigots or racists? No doubt. Yet it is striking that the language and examples here do not emanate from the activist fringe. They come from those representing some of our leading institutions.

When asked about the legitimacy of grass-roots opposition to the health-care bill, for example, Nancy Pelosi dismissed protestors as people "carrying swastikas." Her counterpart in the Senate called them "evil mongers." How convenient. If turning up to protest a health-care bill makes someone a Nazi or an evil monger, there's no point to having a real debate, is there?

These kinds of remarks, moreover, tend to be amplified by a press corps that seems to share many of the same prejudices. Look at Internet listserv JournoList. In this group, participants felt free to urge various outrages—notably, manufacturing a charge of racism for purely political purposes. They did so, moreover, comfortable that no one would find such suggestions beyond the pale.

Take the Washington Post. When the JournoList emails hit, we learned that the reporter assigned to cover conservatives actively loathed them. Sometimes it spilled out, as when he tweeted that opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots. (He later offered a limited apology.) Does it not say something when the hometown paper of our nation's capital cannot seem to find a reporter who can control his contempt for beliefs held by millions of ordinary Americans?

American history confirms the need for leaders willing to make strong moral criticisms of their opponents and society. Certainly we could not progress without them. Still, the most successful—Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, et al.—have been those who appealed to the decency of their fellow citizens.

As the controversy over the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero escalates, we have had many secular sermons on the need to recognize that the vast majority of Muslims should not be confused with the terrorists. No argument there. But how much more fruitful our own debates might be if the Judge Walkers, Mayor Bloombergs and Speaker Pelosis could extend that same presumption of decency to the American people.









bigots

Republicans = Nazis

Biden Claims a GOP 'Blitzkrieg'





June 30, 2010
By Michael McAuliff



Vice President Biden is out with an alarmed e-mail cash appeal warning that the GOP will mount a “blitzkrieg” against Democrats in the fall.

Comparing GOP tactics to the fast-striking forces of Nazi Germany, Biden warns in a message sent by the DCCC today: “As things heat up, you can expect House Democrats will be hit with a GOP blitzkrieg of vicious Swift-Boat-style attack ads, Karl Rove-inspired knockout tactics, thinly veiled attempts at character assassination and tea party disruptions.”

And while the GOP is mounting a blitzkrieg, Democrats are the allies.

“Our Democratic allies in the House need your help, and the President and I hope we can count on you to come to their defense so we can hold onto our Democratic Majority and continue moving American forward in a new direction,” Biden writes in the appeal.

Subtle? Not so much.

Update: Republicans were not amused by the implications of the e-mail.

Kevin Smith, spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner, e-mailed a comment that seems sure to get under Democrats’ skins: “When will Democrats learn that invoking the Nazis’ crimes against humanity in a political debate is simply inappropriate?”

*****************************************

What is just as interesting as Biden attacking Republicans - their values, their patriotism, their faith ... is how often this occurs.


If you follow the link, the comments will tell another side to the story - that Democrats argue the Republicans called them names first, and worse.


What should be done, is each party choose a date where they will begin the argument from.  Democrats could select 2001, Republicans would select ... but why not select 1998 as the base year.  Democrats can start off with the vicious attacks on Clinton, the name calling, the undermining of the Constitution and the Presidency, the coup d'etat ... while Republicans can start with the abuse of power, the lies, the political cowardice of many Democrats, the cover-up, the hypocrisy of ignoring lies by a president but latching on to individual Republican Congressmen about their infidelity or sexual transgressions and never letting go ... it can move into criticism of Bill's wife, and the innuendo's of her preferences, and Democrats would have valid arguments.  Republicans would be able to counter that Bill was shredding the military, weakening the United States, tarnishing the image of the presidency around the world, and placing the United States at greater risk of attack by the weakening of our intelligence and political system.  We could move into 2000 and the election of Bush - and Democrats would argue he stole the election, he was chosen Bush had 50,456,002 or 47.87% of the vote and Gore had 50,999,897 or 48.38% of the vote -a difference of less than 550,000 - that Bush was never elected, he lost.  And worse, that he was born with a silver spoon in his nose, he was a drunk and a drug addict.


The Republicans would remind Democrats that in November 1960, Kennedy received 34,220,984 and Nixon received 34,108,157.  The difference was 112,827 ... yet Republicans did not challenge his legitimacy, even though the dead voted many times in Louisiana and Chicago.  Instead, the Republicans quitely stood up and accepted the vote ... in part because they had equally as much corruption going on as the Democrats, although not as many dead voted for the Republicans.

Yet it is always the Republicans who are bad, corrupt ... I don't recall a Republican Congressman with $90,000 in cash in his freezer, and then to stand up and howl about his right to privacy being violated by the FBI, or the fact he was a sitting Congressman and should be privileged.  It is amazing.  How Harry Reid made so much money off land deals, or Hillary made more than a $100,000 off futures in the commodities market - one she had never played before nor has she ever again.

The Democratic Big Sis Homeland Security informed employees of the TSA that certain websites were off limits ... illegal to visit.  Among these, any which promoted anti-government or angry militant opposition to the government.  Not Republicans, Democrats.  You know, the ones who care about rights and freedoms.

The hypocrisy is drowning in that party.  In the Republican party, it is simply the retardican way.  They couldn't get it right if God Himself gave them the special code to all truth - they'd lose the code and then would look silly trying to explain why they needed it to begin with.






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Democratsdemocrats

Obama Tax Trap: Smarter than your average bear, plus Retardicans are too dumb

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Wall Street Journal
JULY 2, 2010.



The Obama Tax Trap


How some Republicans are preparing to walk right into it.



"'Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits step up. Because I'm calling their bluff."

That was President Barack Obama, the heretofore unknown deficit hawk, all but announcing the other day the tax trap that he's been laying for Republicans. From what we hear about intra-GOP debates, more than a few will be happy to walk right into it.

You don't need a Mensa IQ to figure this one out. Mr. Obama's plan has been to increase spending to new, and what he hopes will be permanent, heights. Then as the public and financial markets begin to fret about deficits and debt, he'll claim that the debt is "unsustainable" and that the only "responsible" policy is to raise taxes.

White House officials even talk privately about the galvanizing political benefit of a bond market crisis, which would force panicked Members of Congress to accept a big new value-added tax. The President's two looming tax reports—one from his deficit commission and the other from Paul Volcker's economic advisory group—are intended to propose a VAT and other tax options. Whatever their initial reception, the proposals will be there to be pulled from the shelf when the political moment is right.

Voila, Mr. Obama will have established a new spend-and-tax policy architecture that has the feds taking from 25% to 30% of GDP, up from the roughly 21% modern average.

***

This strategy explains why Mr. Obama is now starting to fret in public about deficits and debt. This week he even said reducing the debt will be "our project." Funny how debt seemed a lower priority when he was urging Congress to pass $862 billion in stimulus and $1 trillion in new health-care subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office is contributing to this political drama by declaring this week that the "federal budget is on an unsustainable path." Of course, but why? The biggest reason is that Medicare and Medicaid keep rising at two to three times the rate of everything else in the economy and, as CBO explains, will eventually take up every dollar of tax revenues raised, leaving no money for anything else, including national defense.

"Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid," advises CBO, "is the central long term challenge for federal fiscal policy." This is the same CBO that blessed ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion to 16 million more recipients.

What CBO's latest apocalyptic report doesn't stress is what we'd call the more important deficit in its forecast: the growth deficit. CBO predicts an annual rate of GDP growth of 2.2%. Yet since 1959 the U.S. economy has grown at an average rate of 3%, and during the 1980s and 1990s it was closer to 3.5%. The compounding effect of restoring this faster pace of growth would mean far more net national wealth and would certainly make debt repayment easier.

Even Mr. Obama's current spending level of 25% of GDP would be more manageable if the slow economic recovery weren't keeping tax revenue at unusual lows. In 2007, the economy threw off revenue of 18.5% of GDP. That fell to 14.8% in 2009 and may not be too much higher this year. The point is that there is no hope of balancing the federal budget without a return to higher levels of economic growth.

This is where Republicans need to maneuver around Mr. Obama's tax trap. He and his White House economists believe that taxes have little effect on growth so they can get revenues to 20% or 25% of GDP simply by raising tax rates or imposing a VAT. But if they're wrong about the impact of those taxes on a still-fragile economy recovery, they could keep the economy on a subpar growth path for years to come. We think the last thing the U.S. economy needs at the moment—and the worst policy for the deficit—is the big tax increase that will hit on January 1 with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Yet we hear that even many Republicans are privately insisting that any extension of those Bush tax cuts must be "paid for" with other tax increases. Under Congress's perverse budget rules, extending those tax cuts will "cost" the Treasury revenue, even though extending those tax rates would only prevent a tax increase.

And because Congress still uses static revenue scoring—meaning no change in economic behavior from tax changes—the Joint Tax Committee thinks it will raise nearly $1 trillion over 10 years from the higher tax rates on incomes, dividends and capital gains. That's highly improbable. After those tax rates were cut in 2003, total federal tax revenue increased by 44%, or $743 billion, from 2003-2007.

In other words, Democrats have rigged the rules so that merely stopping a tax increase will be scored to increase the deficit. These are the same Democrats who haven't "paid for" trillions of spending in the last four years, but watch them soon denounce Republicans as fiscally irresponsible merely for trying to stop a tax increase. Orwell would love modern Washington.

If Republicans go along with this perverse pay-as-you-go logic, they will play into Mr. Obama's hands. He'll gladly offer to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to "pay for" extending the lower Bush rates on the middle class. Never mind that the tax increases on capital gains, dividends and income tax rates will do the most economic harm.

***

Republicans need to break out of their rhetorical preoccupation with debt and deficits, focusing their political aim instead on spending and above all on reviving economic growth. They should hold the line against all tax increases and begin to consider a menu of tax cuts to make the U.S. more competitive, especially if the economy continues to underperform.

Mr. Obama's strategy of spending our way to prosperity clearly hasn't worked, as the voters are coming to understand. But if the GOP policy response is merely to bemoan deficits, they will soon find themselves back at their historic stand as tax collectors for the welfare state. To avoid Mr. Obama's tax trap, Republicans also need a growth agenda.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
taxes